Skip to main content
PLOS Pathogens logoLink to PLOS Pathogens
. 2025 Jul 24;21(7):e1013361. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1013361

BBK32 attenuates antibody-dependent complement-mediated killing of infectious Borreliella burgdorferi isolates

Alexandra D Powell-Pierce 1, Charles E Booth, Jr 2, Payton G Smith 1, Brittany L Shapiro 1, Shannon S Allen 1, Brandon L Garcia 2,3,*, Jon T Skare 1,*
Editor: Jenifer Coburn4
PMCID: PMC12316396  PMID: 40705830

Abstract

Borreliella burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, has evolved unique complement evasion proteins that promote its ability to establish and maintain infection in mammalian hosts. Among these is B. burgdorferi BBK32, a multifunctional surface lipoprotein that binds extracellular matrix (ECM) components, including fibronectin (Fn). In addition to its ECM-binding functions, BBK32 binds to C1r, the initiator protease of the classical pathway of complement, and protects B. burgdorferi from complement-mediated killing following exposure to normal human serum. The disparate functions of BBK32 in adhesion and complement evasion have previously been studied in isolation. Herein we demonstrate that full-length BBK32 binds both Fn and C1 concurrently, indicating that binding of these macromolecules do not sterically hinder their simultaneous interaction. Given the link of antibody dependence to the classical pathway, we tested how the presence of BBK32 would protect infectious B. burgdorferi from borrelial-specific antibodies in a complement-dependent manner. BBK32 provided protection against complement activation in the presence of borrelial-specific antibodies in vitro. We also demonstrated, using both flow cytometry and fluorescence microscopy, that BBK32 results in the reduction of C4 deposition on the surface of borrelial cells. This work demonstrates that BBK32 can simultaneously bind to both C1r and Fn and contributes to the broader understanding of the ability of B. burgdorferi to evade antibody-dependent complement-mediated killing. These observations are significant as they suggest that BBK32 plays a dual role in adhesion and dissemination in infectious B. burgdorferi, as well as immune evasion activities, which ostensibly promotes its pathogenic potential.

Author summary

Lyme disease, caused by Borreliella burgdorferi and other related species, is the most common arthropod-borne infection in the United States. As an extracellular pathogen, B. burgdorferi is exposed to the complement system—a soluble proteolytic cascade that clears microbial invaders. Complement is defined by three pathways known as the alternative, lectin, and classical. The classical pathway of complement is activated by the binding of antibodies to antigens on foreign or damaged cells. For B. burgdorferi, the BBK32 surface protein is known to mute the classical pathway by binding and inhibiting the initiating protease C1r. However, no studies have addressed how BBK32 protects infectious B. burgdorferi from borrelial-specific antibody-mediated complement clearance. Here we show that native BBK32 protects infectious B. burgdorferi from antibody-dependent, complement-mediated killing. Given BBK32s multifunctionality—namely its known adherence to fibronectin—we were interested to test if BBK32 could bind the C1 complex, which contains C1r, together with fibronectin. Surprisingly, our results demonstrate that these large macromolecular host molecules can bind BBK32 simultaneously. These observations suggest that the dual activity of BBK32, namely fibronectin binding and C1r inhibition, are not mutually exclusive and contribute to B. burgdorferi’s ability to establish infection and evade antibody-based host clearance, respectively.

Introduction

Borreliella burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, is responsible for the largest incidence of vector-transmitted illness in the United States [14]. Transmitted by hard ticks of the Ixodes genus and predominantly dependent on small rodents as a reservoir, B. burgdorferi can adapt to these disparate environments through a diverse set of genes regulated by environmental cues that have not yet been fully determined [5,6]. Differentially regulated genes contribute to its ability to establish infection in the vastly diverse sites it colonizes between ticks and vertebrates [611], as well as escape the immune systems of these hosts at distinct points in its life cycle [12,13]. During vertebrate infection, B. burgdorferi evades an onslaught of host immune responses, both natural and targeted, that seek to kill the spirochete [1416]. Given that B. burgdorferi is largely considered an extracellular pathogen, one branch of immunity that contributes to the killing of B. burgdorferi during vertebrate infection is the complement cascade [17,18]. The complement system is a series of proteolytic reactions that function to recruit immune cells to the site of activation, tag the target cell with opsonins for phagocyte recognition, and create a lytic pore in the membrane of the target cell, termed the membrane attack complex (MAC) [1922]. The classical pathway of complement is initiated by antigen-bound antibody and the resulting deposition of the C1 complex comprised of C1q, C1r, and C1s [20,21,23]. Binding of C1 to antigen-bound IgG or IgM antibodies leads to the autoactivation of the C1r initiating protease, which then cleaves C1s. Activated C1s then modifies C2 and C4 downstream via limited proteolysis that results in the deposition of C4b and C2a to form a functional C3 convertase that then tags the target cell with C3b. The linkage of C3b to the target cell results in opsonization or the formation of the membrane attack complex (MAC) [20,21]. During tick transmission of B. burgdorferi in mice, the presence of murine natural IgM—that are not directed toward any particular invader, including B. burgdorferi—minimizes the number of spirochetes in the tick midgut, presumably due to complement-mediated killing [24]. Nonetheless, serum from mice previously infected with B. burgdorferi is more effective at spirochete destruction than naïve serum, implying a role for both natural and directed antibody responses in reducing B. burgdorferi numbers at different stages during transmission and infection [24,25]. The ability of B. burgdorferi to quell the classical complement cascade, following antibody recognition, would seemingly result in extended survival and persistence in the face of both a non-specific and specific humoral response.

B. burgdorferi encodes for a wide range of complement inhibitors that function to prevent killing mediated by the complement cascade, with significant work focused on the alternative pathway and, more recently, the classical pathway [2628]. Resistance to the alternative pathway by B. burgdorferi is mediated by numerous surface-exposed proteins designated as CRASP, OspE, Erp, or Csp proteins [2935]. These proteins facilitate the binding of factor H to the surface of the borrelial cells thereby preventing the activation of C3 convertase and are produced within B. burgdorferi at different stages of the zoonotic cycle [36,37]. For the classical pathway, several borrelial proteins have been identified that inhibit activation. For example, p43, a protein of unknown identity that functions as a recruiter of C4 binding protein, inhibits both the classical and lectin pathways [2628,38]. Separately, OspC recognizes C4b, inhibiting C3 convertase formation [39]. Although p43 or OspC do not prevent C4 cleavage, they do impair deposition of C3b, a crucial component of complement, preventing the activation of the terminal components of complement. More recently, proteins from the OspE/F-like leader peptide family (Elps) have been shown to block the classical pathway by preventing C1s-mediated cleavage of C4 and C2 [4042]. BBK32, which is upregulated during vertebrate infection, can potently block activation of the classical pathway by binding to C1r [36,37,4346].

Prior to its discovery as a complement inhibitory protein, BBK32 was characterized as a fibronectin (Fn) binding protein, and then for its ability to bind glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) [4751]. These ECM interactions are thought to play a role in B. burgdorferi’s ability to extravasate through the vascular endothelium and disseminate throughout the infected host, mediating its ability to infect and colonize distal tissues [47,51,52]. During murine infection studies, a bbk32 mutant exhibits attenuated infectivity at lower infection doses [47,52]; however, it is not clear if this phenotype is associated with the loss of BBK32 binding to ECM (GAGs or Fn) or due to abrogated BBK32-associated complement inhibitory activity. Additionally, the role of targeted antibodies in B. burgdorferi classical pathway-mediated killing, broadly and in the scope of BBK32’s activity, has not yet been established. Because the classical pathway is dependent on antibody binding to the B. burgdorferi surface for its activity, BBK32-mediated inhibition may be important in both the initial stages of pathogen clearance when “natural” IgM recognize B. burgdorferi and later once a targeted antibody response has developed [24,25]. Antibody binding can lead to a wide range of immune-mediated pathogen clearance mechanisms, from phagocyte binding and phagocytosis to activation of lymphocytes [20,21]. Previously, we have shown that key residues of BBK32 occlude the C1r active site within its catalytic serine protease (SP) domain [44]. When specific residues are mutated from their native amino acids to alanine, BBK32’s binding to C1r and classical complement inhibitory activity is lost [44].

Earlier studies focused on identifying key regions of BBK32 interfacing with Fn and GAG, which are likely important for adhesion to vasculature during the dissemination phase of Lyme disease [53,54]. Both the GAG and Fn binding domains map to the intrinsically disordered amino terminal half of BBK32 [46,4851,55]. The known interactions between BBK32 and its ligands Fn, GAG, and C1r have been studied independently in vitro [46,4851,55]. A prior study showed that BBK32’s Fn- and GAG-binding activity served to slow the spirochetes in the vasculature, thus promoting extravasation [53,54]. Large domain deletions in BBK32, when analyzed in mouse vasculature using intravital microscopy, showed that BBK32 functions to first tether B. burgdorferi to the vasculature via its Fn interactions, functioning as a brake, while GAG-binding positions the cells optimally for extravasation through longer-lived interactions [54]. Despite this, the spatiotemporal role of each function during infection, in particular BBK32’s C1r-binding activity, remains unclear. Additionally, the ability of BBK32 to interact with ECM components and C1r or the entire C1 complex, either independently or simultaneously, has not been determined.

Here, we use protein structural modeling and biophysical analyses to show that BBK32 can simultaneously interact with Fn and C1. Using an in vitro model to demonstrate the antibody-dependence of complement killing in an infectious isolate of B. burgdorferi, we also demonstrate the ability of BBK32 to partially protect borrelial cells from antibodies directed against B. burgdorferi. As a result of these studies, we have determined that BBK32’s adhesin and C1r inhibitory activity may play a role not only during initial stages of infection, but its ability to impair classical complement-mediated clearance after a robust borrelial antibody response has been mounted. In addition, these studies have highlighted BBK32’s ability to interface with both Fn and C1, suggesting that these seemingly disparate roles occur concurrently to facilitate dissemination and survival within an infected host.

Materials and methods

AlphaFold3 analysis

The AlphaFold3 (AF3) server [56] was used to predict a ternary complex of BBK32, Fn and C1r. Amino acid sequences corresponding to the Fn domains 2-5FnI (UNIPROT: P02751, residues 95–273), the C1r SP domain (UNIPROT: P00736, residues 464–702) were co-folded with BBK32 (UNIPROT: O50835, residues 131–354). Structural alignments and root mean square deviation (rmsd) calculations were performed with Pymol (The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 3.0 Schrödinger, LLC) using the previously resolved crystal structures of the unbound C-terminal region of BBK32 (PDB: 6N1L, [45]), BBK32 in complex with C1r CCP1-CCP2-SP (PDB: 7MZT, [44]), and BBK32 in complex with 2-3FnI (PDB: 4PZ5, [57]).

Bacterial strains and plasmids

Borreliella burgdorferi B31 strains ML23/pBBE22luc, B31-A3-GFP [58,59], and the non-infectious derivative B314, were grown in BSK-II and 6% normal rabbit serum (Pel-Freez Biologicals, Rogers, AR) as described [60,61]. The bbk32 mutant derivatives of ML23 and B31-A3-GFP, JS315/pBBE22luc and GP100, respectively, are referred to in Table 1. B31-A3-GFP and GP100 were cultured with gentamicin at 50 µg/ml under conditions that partially mimic the mammalian environment (5% CO2, 37°C, pH 6.8). ML23/pBBE22luc and JS315/pBBE22luc were grown under similar mammalian-like conditions in kanamycin at 300 µg/ml. Additional antibiotic resistance for JS315 and GP100 are indicated in Table 1. All B. burgdorferi strains containing either pBBE22luc, pCD100, or pAP7 were grown with kanamycin at 300 µg/ml.

Table 1. Borreliella burgdorferi strains used for present study.

Borreliella burgdorferi Strain Description Reference
ML23/pBBE22luc Serum-sensitive, non-infectious B. burgdorferi B31 derivative strain lacking linear plasmid 25 with shuttle vector pBBE22 encoding bbe22 and B. burgdorferi codon-optimized luc gene under the control of a strong borrelial promoter (PflaB-luc); kanR. [52,62]
JS315/pBBE22luc bbk32 mutant in ML23-pBBE22luc background; strepR, kanR. [52]
JS315/pCD100 JS315 with wildtype bbk32 under control of the bbk32 native promoter in pBBE22luc; strepR, kanR. This study
JS315/pAP7 JS315 with bbk32 R248A/K327A under control of the bbk32 native promoter in pBBE22luc; strepR, kanR. This study
B31-A3-GFP B31-A3 transformed with gfp under control of the borrelial flaB promoter on the cp26 plasmid; gentR. [59]
GP100 bbk32 mutant in B31-A3-GFP background; gentR, strepR. This study
GP100/pCD100 GP100 with wildtype bbk32 under control of the bbk32 native promoter in pBBE22luc; gentR, strepR, kanR. This study
GP100/pAP7 GP100 with bbk32 R248A/K327A under control of the bbk32 native promoter in pBBE22luc; gentR, strepR, kanR. This study
B314/pCD100 Non-infectious B. burgdorferi strain B31 derivative missing all linear plasmids transformed with intact bbk32 (with bbk32 promoter) cloned into pBBE22luc; kanR [44,46,52]
B314/pAP7 Non-infectious B. burgdorferi strain B31 derivative missing all linear plasmids transformed with the bbk32-R248A/K327A allele (under the control of the bbk32 promoter) cloned into pBBE22luc; kanR [44,52]

Transformation of B. burgdorferi

Transformation of strains B. burgdorferi ML23 with the plasmid construct pAP7, and B31-A3-GFP with pCD100 and pAP7 was performed as previously described [44,47,6365]. The presence of plasmids pCD100 and pAP7 was selected in complete BSK-II media using kanamycin at a final concentration of 300 μg/ml. As is the norm, all borrelial transformants were screened for their composition of all plasmid DNA [58]. Only strain transformants that maintained the collection of plasmids found in their parental derivative were used.

Far Western overlay analysis

Far Western overlays were carried out essentially as described [46,63], using B. burgdorferi strains ML23/pBBE22luc and B31-A3-GFP along with their respective bbk32 mutant derivatives (JS315/pBBE22luc and GP100, respectively; see Table 1). The bbk32 mutant derivatives (JS315 alone and GP100) were transformed with either pCD100 or pAP7, which encode for native bbk32 or the bbk32-R248A/K327A allele, respectively, expressed using the native bbk32 promoter (Table 1). Whole-cell lysates were generated for the borrelial strains, and 2.5x107 whole cell equivalents were resolved by SDS-PAGE and then transferred to PVDF membranes. Membranes were blocked overnight in 5% non-fat milk, washed, and then incubated with either (1) 20 µg human fibronectin (EMD Millipore); (2) 20 µg active human C1r (Complement Technologies). Membranes were then washed and probed for either fibronectin or C1r using an anti-human Fn HRP conjugate (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), or an anti-human C1r HRP conjugate (Santa Cruz Biotechnology), respectively (both diluted 1:5,000). To confirm BBK32 production, a monoclonal antibody to the C-terminus of BBK32 (contracted to and produced by ProMab Biotechnologies) was used at a 1:10,000 dilution, and the samples normalized to FlaB levels using an anti-borrelial FlaB monoclonal antibody (US Biological). Both monoclonal antibodies were detected using a goat anti-mouse immunoglobulin HRP conjugate diluted 1:10,000 (ThermoFisher Scientific). Blots were then visualized using the Western Lightning Plus-ECL (PerkinElmer).

C1r and Fn binding studies

Surface plasmon resonance (SPR) assays were performed using immobilized BBK32 on a CMD200 sensor chip (Xantec) via standard amine coupling using conditions previously described [4446,63]. Either 20 nM Fn or 50 nM C1, or a mixture of 20 nM Fn and 50 nM C1, were individually injected over the BBK32 biosensor for 2 min, followed by a dissociation time of 3 min. Two 60 s injections of regeneration buffer (0.1 M Glycine (pH 2.0), 2.5 M NaCl) were used to return the biosensor to baseline. Purified C1 was obtained from Complement Technologies. Purified human fibronectin was obtained from Millipore Sigma. BBK32 was purified according to previously published protocols [50].

The ability of BBK32 to concurrently interact with Fn and C1 was determined based on the binding response just prior to the injection stop and calculated by subtracting the Fn sensorgram from the co-injection sensorgram to calculate residual binding. The resulting residual binding sensorgram was then compared to the injection of C1 alone.

Flow cytometry

Two borrelial strains in the non-infectious, serum-sensitive strain B314 background were evaluated by flow cytometry using either native bbk32 (encoded by pCD100; [44,46]) or the bbk32-R248A-K327A allele that is unable to bind or inhibit C1r (encoded by pAP7; [44]). The cells were grown to mid log phase, washed in PBS, and incubated with 50 μg octadecyl-rhodamine to fluorescently label the cells for 30 minutes at 37˚C. The cells were centrifuged at 3600 x g and washed twice to remove unincorporated octadecyl-rhodamine. Cells were then incubated for 30 minutes with 175 ng rabbit anti-B. burgdorferi polyclonal antibody (Abcam). C5-depleted human serum (Complement Technologies) was added as a source of complement to a final concentration of 10%. Following fixation, the samples were incubated for 30 minutes with 1 μg of a mouse monoclonal antibody to C4c (Quidel). Cells were washed with PBS with 0.5% BSA and then incubated for 30 minutes with 1 μg anti-mouse IgG Alexa Fluor 647 to detect C4c deposition. Cells were washed with PBS prior to flow cytometry.

Each group of fixed cells were then analyzed using the BD Fortessa X-20 within 24 hours of sample preparation. 10,000 events were read for each sample on the flow cytometer. Cells were characterized based on their individual fluorescent properties and analyzed with BD FACSDiva and FlowJo Software. B. burgdorferi strain B314-pCD100 were also prepared following the same protocol described but without staining, were individually stained with octadecyl-rhodamine, or with secondary antibody for compensation of spectral overlap. To establish proper gating and demonstrate primary antibody specificity, events were first gated on forward scatter (FSC) and side scatter (SSC). Rhodamine-positive cells were then gated for the presence of C4c. B314-pCD100 without C4c antibody treatment was used to gate negative C4c events with a 0.2% false positive rate.

Fluorescent microscopy and colocalization analysis

Colocalization of anti-B. burgdorferi antibodies and complement component C4c was determined using the B. burgdorferi B31-A3-GFP strain derivatives after washing the cells and incubating with 1 µg of a rabbit anti-B. burgdorferi polyclonal antibody or a rabbit isotype control (Abcam). C5-depleted human serum (Complement Technologies) was added to 20% as a source of complement. Subsequently, cells were incubated for 30 minutes with 0.5 µg of a mouse monoclonal antibody to C4c (Quidel). Cells were washed with PBS with 0.5% BSA and then incubated for 30 minutes with 1 µg anti-rabbit IgG-Alexa Fluor 594 Plus to detect added rabbit antibodies, as well as 1 µg anti-mouse IgG-Cy5 to detect bound C4c antibodies. Cells were then fixed using 4% methanol-free paraformaldehyde and mounted onto a slide using Prolong Diamond Antifade Mountant (ThermoFisher). Cells were imaged using the Olympus Fluoview FV3000 confocal microscope, with equivalent exposure times for each fluorophore channel across samples. Cells were also prepared without antibody treatment and imaged in the GFP and DIC channels to demonstrate that all cells analyzed were GFP positive.

Colocalization analyses to determine the intensity correlation quotient (ICQ) were performed using the JACOP intensity correlation coefficient-based analysis plugin for ImageJ [66] separately for five biological replicates per sample using both antibodies directed against B. burgdorferi and an isotype control.

Antibody-dependent complement-mediated killing assays

Antibody-dependent complement killing was assessed in vitro by diluting cells to a concentration of 5 x 106 B. burgdorferi cells/ml in PBS, 0.5% BSA. Cells were then exposed to 175 ng rabbit anti-B. burgdorferi polyclonal antibody (Abcam) in addition to 20% NHS (Complement Technologies) for 30 minutes similar to recently published work [42]. Control groups were exposed to 175 ng rabbit isotype antibody (Abcam) coupled with 20% NHS to depict the antibody-dependent binding associated with complement activation, or 175 ng anti-B. burgdorferi antibody coupled with heat inactivated NHS to test whether the killing was purely antibody-dependent and assess the complement-dependence on borrelial death, respectively. Cells were then assessed for viability using a dark field microscope based on motility and membrane disruptions, as done in earlier published work [44,63].

Statistics

Data is shown as the average of the replicates with 95% confidence intervals. A one-way ANOVA with a Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used for SPR residual binding analysis. For the flow cytometry analysis, a two-tailed unpaired t-test was used. For antibody-dependent killing assays, two-way ANOVA with a Šidák correction for multiple comparisons was used. All statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism version 9.3.

Results

BBK32 binds both fibronectin and C1 concurrently in vitro

To assess the multifunctionality of BBK32, we determined if the amino-terminal Fn binding and carboxy-terminal C1r interactions were mutually exclusive. Previous work assessing the Fn-binding domain of BBK32 determined that amino acid residues 131–162, intrinsically disordered until bound to Fn, were necessary for binding to human fibronectin [4951,54,57,6770]. Residues 206–354 were deemed BBK32’s “ordered” region, forming a stable four-helix bundle structure that binds tightly to C1r [4446,50].

We hypothesized that BBK32 might be able to concurrently bind to both Fn and C1r, allowing for both its extracellular matrix binding and complement inhibitory activities during B. burgdorferi infection. Using AlphaFold3 (AF3) [56], predictions of each protein-protein interaction were made using residues from BBK32 previously shown to be important for each interaction (residues 131–354) along with the relevant domain truncations of each host protein (i.e., 2-5FnI and C1r SP) (Fig 1). The resulting model was of high quality as judged by consistently high pLDDT scores across the model (i.e., > 70), a high pTM score (i.e., 0.73), a moderately high iPTM score (i.e., 0.71), and low PAE errors for BBK32 residues and the corresponding Fn or C1r residues (S1 Fig) [56]. Furthermore, the resulting model of the ternary complex was consistent with previously resolved experimental structures in three important ways: i) the C-terminal region of the BBK32 AF3 model closely matches the crystal structure of BBK32-C (RMSD = 0.181 Å; PDB: 6N1L ( [45]); ii) the binary complex of C1r/BBK32 aligns closely with the co-crystal structure of BBK32-C in complex with a proteolytic fragment of C1r (RMSD = 0.586 Å; PDB: 7MZT ( [44]); and iii) similar agreement is found between the binary prediction of Fn/BBK32 and the crystal structure of an N-terminal BBK32 peptide in complex with domains 2-3FnI of Fn (RMSD = 0.737 Å; PDB: 4PZ5 ( [57]).

Fig 1. AlphaFold3 model of the C1r-BBK32-Fn ternary complex.

Fig 1

AlphaFold3 was used to simultaneously fold BBK32 (orange, residues 131–354; UNIPROT: O50835), the C1r serine protease (SP) domain (grey, residues 464–702; UNIPROT: P00736), and the Fibronectin N-terminal domains (FN NTD; 2FnI-5FnI) (cyan, residues 95–273, UNIPROT: P02751). Structural alignments to the published crystal structures of BBK32-C (PDB: 6N1L), the complex of BBK32-C and C1r (PDB: 7MZT), and the complex of BBK32-N with 2FnI-3FnI (PDB: 4PZ5) are shown inset. C1r and Fn from the crystal structures are drawn in red in each alignment, while BBK32 residues are shown in blue. Root mean square deviation (rmsd) (αC) is shown for each alignment.

The AF3 model presented in Fig 1 predicts that it is structurally feasible for full-length BBK32 to interact with domain fragments of each host ligand. However, given the large size of each full-length host molecule (i.e., Fn (~500 kDa dimer) and C1 (~760 kDa as C1qC1r2C1s2), we sought biophysical evidence that these interactions can occur in vitro. Here we used purified recombinant full-length BBK32 to produce surface plasmon resonance (SPR) biosensors. Purified human C1 (50 nM), purified human Fn (20 nM), or a co-injections of 20 nM Fn and 50 nM C1 were then injected over immobilized full-length BBK32. The resulting sensorgram for 20 nM Fn was then subtracted from the co-injection curve to calculate residual C1 binding by the BBK32 surface (Fig 2A and 2B). Analysis of the residual binding responses strongly suggested that BBK32 can bind both host proteins simultaneously in vitro (Fig 2C).

Fig 2. BBK32 binds C1 and Fn concurrently.

Fig 2

A. SPR assays were performed using immobilized BBK32 injected with 20 nM human Fn, 50 nM human C1, and B. a co-injection of 20 nM human Fn and 50 nM human C1. C. The ability of BBK32 to concurrently interact with human Fn and C1 was calculated by subtracting the human Fn curve from the co-injection curve and comparing that curve to the human C1-alone injection curve. Three technical replicates were performed. Error bars represent SD. Statistical significance of the residual binding signals were assessed using a one-way ANOVA with a Tukey’s multiple comparisons test, * P < 0.002, ns = not significant.

BBK32 C-terminal double alanine mutant binds Fn but not C1r

We have previously shown that BBK32’s ability to bind and inhibit human C1r is abrogated by mutations introduced within its complement inhibitory domain that map to its C-terminus [4446]. The targets of our prior studies were amino acid residues R248 and K327, which interact with the C1r active site and B loop, respectively (also referred to as the K1 and K2 sites recently [43,44]). In our previous work, assays were performed in the ML23 background as we had used this strain in the bbk32 mutant infectivity analyses [47,58]. However, the ML23 derivative lacks the linear plasmid 25, which is essential to complete the enzootic cycle [58,71]. In addition, screening a distinct B. burgdorferi bbk32 mutant in an independent infectious derivative provides additional evidence that the results observed were not strain specific. For comparison we used the B31-A3-GFP and the ML23 (Fig 3) genetic backgrounds to independently assess subsequent overlays and cell sensitivity assays. To assess the ability of wild type BBK32 and the double alanine (DA) mutant (BBK32-R248A/K327A) to bind to C1r and Fn, we performed Western blots first showing that protein lysate collected from parent strains (ML23 pBBE22luc and B31-A3-GFP), the bbk32 wild type (WT) complement (JS315 pCD100 and GP100 pCD100), and the bbk32 DA mutant complement (JS315 pAP7 and GP100 pAP7) produced BBK32, while the bbk32 knockout strains (JS315 pBBE22luc and GP100) did not. Overlays were performed probing these protein lysates with human enzyme C1r and Fn (Fig 3). In these assays, the parent, native bbk32 complement, and the bbk32-R28A/K327A allele (DA mutant) complement bound Fn, while only the parent and WT complement bound C1r, indicating that the DA mutations in the C-terminus did not affect binding of Fn in the N-terminal portion of BBK32. This targeted abrogation of BBK32’s C-terminal C1r binding activity allows for pointed functional analyses of BBK32’s distinct activities.

Fig 3. Differential binding of human Fn and C1r to B. burgdorferi strain B31-A3, bbk32 mutant, and functional and non-functional bbk32 derivatives.

Fig 3

A. Overlay experiments performed using B31-A3 GFP parent, and isogenic bbk32 mutant strain (GP100), native bbk32 complement (GP100 pCD100), and a bbk32-R248A/K327A double alanine (DA) mutant complement (GP100 pAP7). B. Identical overlays for strain ML23 pBBE22luc (parent), the bbk32 mutant derivative (JS315 pBBE22luc), native bbk32 complement (JS315 pCD100), and a bbk32-R248A/K327A double alanine (DA) mutant complement (JS315 pAP7). For both sets of strains, protein lysates were incubated with human Fn or human C1r and then probed separately with antibody reagents specific for either human Fn or C1r (see Methods). These same samples were also probed with monoclonal antibodies to BBK32 and B. burgdorferi FlaB (third row and bottom row, both panels, respectively).

BBK32 reduces complement activation on the surface of B. burgdorferi

The DA mutant phenotype was used to address the role of borrelial-specific antibody in the complement inhibition function of full-length BBK32 by quantifying C4c deposition on the surface of spirochetes using flow cytometry. The degree of complement activation was tested in a serum-sensitive derivative of B. burgdorferi, strain B314, that we have used previously to assess resistance to normal human serum [4446]. We used a strain that made intact BBK32 (B314 pCD100; Fig 4A) and one that carries the bbk32-R248A-K327A allele that does not bind or inhibit human C1r (B314 pAP7; Fig 4B) [44]. Anti-B. burgdorferi antibody was added with C5-depleted human serum and cells were screened for C4c deposition by flow cytometry (Fig 4). C5-depleted serum was used to prevent the formation of the membrane attack complex (MAC) that results in cell damage and difficulty in gating the cells by flow cytometry. A control with no added antibody to C4c was also included as indicated (see Methods; Fig 4C). Fig 4D shows the results from cells encoding native BBK32 (B314 pCD100) relative to the DA BBK32 mutant that cannot bind or inhibit C1r (B314 pAP7). Cells producing wildtype BBK32 exhibit significantly lower levels of C4c deposition than cells that produce the BBK32-R248A/K327A mutant. These results are consistent with functional BBK32 inhibiting C1r and concomitantly reducing C4 proteolysis and subsequent attachment of C4c to the borrelial cells that encode it.

Fig 4. Loss of BBK32 complement binding and inhibition results in increased C4 deposition.

Fig 4

The serum-sensitive derivative B314 was transformed with either native bbk32 or the bbk32-R248A/K327A allele that lacks C1r binding or inhibition activity. Both cells were incubated with antibodies against B. burgdorferi, followed by C5-depleted human serum. The level of C4c deposition was then scored for 10,000 events using flow cytometry tracking the deposition of C4c on the surface of the spirochetes. The isolate encoding wildtype bbk32 is shown in Panel A, the strain with bbk32-R248A/K327A (double alanine mutant [DA]) is depicted in Panel B, and a control with no antibody to C4c is indicated in Panel C (see Methods for detail). Panel D shows the data comparing wildtype bbk32 (green) relative to expressing bbk32-R248A/K327A (purple) in B. burgdorferi strain B314 as a histogram plot with the background binding shown in Panel C subtracted. The presence of wildtype BBK32 reduces the amount of C4c deposition relative to the BBK32-R248/K327A DA mutant consistent with the mutant’s inability to bind and inhibit C1r and reduce classical complement activation. The mean for three individual replicates is shown with standard deviation. * P = 0.02.

BBK32 protects an infectious isolate of B. burgdorferi from borrelial-specific antibody-mediated complement-dependent killing in vitro

To determine whether BBK32 inhibits the deposition of classical complement components on the surface of infectious isolates of B. burgdorferi, we exposed borrelial cells to borrelial-specific antibodies and scored for surface deposition of C4c—as a proxy for C4b—using an immunofluorescent microscopy readout using GFP-producing cells (Fig 5). All detectable B. burgdorferi cells for these strains produce GFP as shown in S2 Fig. As with the flow cytometric analysis, we used C5-depleted human serum as the source of complement to reduce the damage of B. burgdorferi cells via formation of the MAC while maintaining a readout for classical complement activation and inhibition. Following borrelial antibody incubation and exposure to C5-depleted human serum, the parent strain (B31-A3-GFP) and bbk32 mutant that expressed native bbk32 (GP100 pCD100) had reduced C4c localized on their surface (Fig 5). In contrast, B. burgdorferi cells lacking BBK32 (GP100), and particularly those expressing the bbk32-R248A-K327A allele in a bbk32 mutant background (GP100 pAP7), showed more C4c when incubated with the anti-B. burgdorferi antibody consistent with their reduced BBK32 complement inhibitory activity (Fig 5). However, when a rabbit isotype control antibody was combined with the C5-depleted serum, all cells, independent of genetic composition, showed less C4c deposition consistent with reduced control antibody binding and concomitant decreased complement activation (S3 Fig). To address the degree of C4c deposition, we scored for colocalization of GFP with C4c using integrated colocalization quotient (ICQ) calculations between these samples [66] (S4 Fig). While only the bbk32 complement strains demonstrated a significant difference with this assessment, the overall trend was consistent with reduced classical complement resistance activation only in cells with functional BBK32. The same analysis with the non-borrelial isotype control antibody showed no colocalization of GFP and C4c signal, corroborating the images in S3 Fig.

Fig 5. Qualitative assessment of increased deposition of complement components in bbk32 mutant strains.

Fig 5

Green fluorescent protein (GFP) producing B. burgdorferi strains B31-A3 GFP, GP100 (B31-A3 GFP bbk32::StrR), GP100 pCD100 (bbk32::StrR with native bbk32 complement), and GP100 pAP7 (bbk32::StrR with bbk32-R248A/K327A [DA] complement) were incubated with rabbit anti-B. burgdorferi antibody coupled with C5-depleted serum. Cells were then probed with murine anti-C4c, followed by anti-mouse Cy5. Cells were fluorescently imaged via confocal microscopy and B. burgdorferi antibody binding and C4c deposition were assessed. Cells that have increased colocalization of GFP together with C4c are depicted in light blue in the lower row of each strain tested.

We then determined if BBK32 protected B. burgdorferi from borrelial-specific antibodies and complement-mediated killing in these same infectious isolates and, independently, in an additional parallel set of strains using a quantitative readout. Infectious B31-A3-GFP and ML23 pBBE22luc background strains were used for in vitro assays in which B. burgdorferi were incubated with a targeted polyclonal rabbit antibody against B. burgdorferi, coupled with normal human serum (NHS), as a source of complement [42]. Without the addition of the anti-B. burgdorferi antibody, both ML23 pBBE22luc and B31-A3-GFP are resistant to human serum, as expected based on prior studies determining serum resistance for infectious B. burgdorferi (Fig 6) [17]. As a control for the dependence on borrelial-specific antibody recognition, we used the same rabbit isotype antibody for the fluorescent microscopy (Fig 5), together with NHS, and observed no killing of the spirochetes (Fig 6). However, when all strains were incubated with both NHS and the anti-B. burgdorferi antibody, only the derivatives lacking bbk32 were significantly decreased in their ability to survive antibody-dependent, complement-mediated killing (Fig 6). This phenotype was rescued when native bbk32 was complemented in the bbk32 mutant strains, but not in isolates expressing the bbk32-R248A-K327A allele (Fig 6). The relative difference between the parent, mutant, and complement strains was comparable in both the B31-A3-GFP and ML23 pBBE22luc backgrounds (Fig 6), confirming this phenotype is consistent across independently obtained B. burgdorferi B31 isolates.

Fig 6. Antibody-dependent complement-mediated killing of B. burgdorferi strain B31-A3 derivatives.

Fig 6

A. The B31-A3-GFP parent strain, the isogenic bbk32 mutant GP100 (B31-A3-GFP bbk32::StrR), the GP100 strain complemented with either native bbk32 (GP100 pCD100) or bbk32-R248A/K327A double alanine (DA) mutant (GP100 pAP7) were each separately incubated with anti-B. burgdorferi antibody coupled with NHS, rabbit isotype control antibody coupled with NHS, or anti-B. burgdorferi antibody coupled with heat-inactivated NHS. B. Identical assays were performed for the ML23 derivatives (see Table 1 and Fig 3). Viability of each data set was then assessed via dark-field microscopy based on cell motility and overt membrane disruption in triplicate. Error bars represent standard deviation values. * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.

Discussion

BBK32 is known to contribute to B. burgdorferi’s ability to establish experimental infection, thought in part to be due to its ability to bind ECM components and, more recently, its ability to inhibit complement activation [45,46,4852,55]. The temporal balance of these two functions is unknown, and the multifunctional role of BBK32 during the dissemination phase of infection, where extravasation and complement inhibition are both crucial, has not been explored. Though the impact of normal human serum on a non-infectious isolate of B. burgdorferi had been characterized in our previous work [44], the survival of an infectious derivative of B. burgdorferi in the presence of a borrelial-specific antibody had not been assessed. We hypothesized that survival of infectious B. burgdorferi following exposure to antibody against borrelial antigens—and subsequent activation of classical complement—would be enhanced by the presence of functional BBK32.

As an extracellular pathogen, B. burgdorferi is found in blood and interstitial fluid that contain innate immune compounds and cells. Early in infection, and as the infection proceeds, some B. burgdorferi are processed by the host, resulting in a potent antibody response against them. Despite a strong humoral response to B. burgdorferi, as well as the presence of host complement, B. burgdorferi persists, in part, by quelling classical pathway activation despite borrelial antibody-antigen complex formation [24,72]. One additional question that has not been explored is whether BBK32 can bind the C1 complex and ECM components (namely Fn) simultaneously. Our analysis here of infectious isolates with fully functional BBK32, or a BBK32 mutant deficient in classical complement inhibition, is designed to serve as an in vitro proxy for testing this possibility.

The work described herein portrays BBK32’s C1r-inhibitory activity in a novel context: protection against targeted antibody-dependent complement killing, which occurs concurrently with BBK32’s Fn-binding activity. The use of the impaired bbk32 DA complement afforded us a unique strategy for characterization of a multifunctional protein in B. burgdorferi. Namely, normal Fn binding but with an abrogated C1r interaction. We correlated native bbk32 expression with decreased localization of complement components to the B. burgdorferi surface and showed the protective impact of BBK32 against B. burgdorferi-specific antibody-directed complement-mediated killing. This analysis provides the foundation for pointed structure-guided mechanistic characterization of other C1r inhibitors—as well as Fn binding—across Lyme disease and tick-borne relapsing fever (TBRF) spirochetes [43,63].

Orthologues to bbk32 have been identified in TBRF Borrelia, some of which have already been determined to bind both Fn and complement components similar to BBK32 [43,63,73]. By leveraging our understanding of the amino- and carboxy-terminal activities of these proteins, we can begin to ask how these multifunctional domains contribute to infection in the face of natural and targeted antibody responses. B. miyamotoi FbpA is an example of a C1r inhibitor in a TBRF spirochete that also interfaces with Fn [63]. Through the identification of key “hotspot” residues that mediate BBK32’s and B. miyamotoi FbpA’s interactions with C1r, we have been able to define a consistent, borrelial species-agnostic mechanism for this class of complement inhibitors for a subset of TBRF FbpA proteins [43,63]. Interestingly, independent of their ability to bind Fn, all the C1r inhibitor proteins characterized to date—either BBK32, BBK32-like, or Fbp proteins—contain a disordered N-terminal domain and an ordered C-terminal domain, the latter binding to and mediating the inhibition of mammalian C1r [4446,63]. Mutations that abrogate C1r binding and inhibition allow for an improved analysis of Fn binding in B. burgdorferi pathogenesis could be leveraged for determining the role of the distinct domains found within BBK32. In this study, we have elucidated the ability of BBK32 to bind to both C1r and Fn concurrently. However, a targeted mutagenesis approach is needed to assess how these domains affect borrelial pathogenesis. While we already have mutations in BBK32 that abrogate C1r binding and inhibition, we lack a full-length mutant that reduces or eliminates BBK32-mediated Fn binding. Future studies will initially focus on mutagenizing BBK32’s Fn-binding domain [49,50,57,67] to determine if Fn and/or C1r-binding activities promote pathogenic outcomes associated with borrelial infection. Additional recognition of GAGs coincident with Fn or C1r binding seems likely but will require additional experimentation.

There are several pathogens, notably Staphylococcus aureus, that produce surface proteins that interact with host ECM and complement components [67,7476]. This common dual function feature of ECM and complement interaction by additional pathogenic bacteria suggests that this correlation between pathogens is not random and is involved in mediating their pathogenic potential [77,78]. The idea that both distinct functional domains of these proteins might be contributing to immune evasion seems plausible, especially considering Fn’s immunomodulatory activity through its ability to bind C1q’s collagen-like tail. This Fn::C1q interaction is thought, in some instances, to alter the phagocytosis of pathogens and promote their recognition by phagocytes [7981]. As this relates to B. burgdorferi, BBK32 does not interact with Fn in regions thought to be recognized by phagocytes; thus, it is unlikely that it functions to prevent Fn-mediated phagocytosis by occluding this site. However, BBK32 could be positioning Fn to interact with C1q’s collagen tails and sequestering C1q in complex with Fn, limiting the recognition of the C1 complex by host C1q receptors. This type of beneficial immune evasion tactic might also explain BBK32’s ability to bind to the C1r zymogen, which previously seemed counterintuitive to the goal of preventing C1r/C1 complex localization to the B. burgdorferi surface [44,46,79,80]. Nonetheless, this theory would need to be further investigated.

It is known that infectious B. burgdorferi is resistant to human complement due to the presence of numerous genes encoding proteins that inhibit the various complement pathways [2628,82]. The best characterized of these proteins are the factor H binding proteins that destabilize and inhibit C3 convertase formation and provide resistance to the alternative pathway of complement [31,32,8386]. Given that BBK32 is an inhibitor of the classical complement cascade, we tested bbk32 mutants relative to the infectious parent strain for their ability to bind to immobilized C1. We found that there were no differences between these two strains, implying that there were compensatory borrelial proteins that could also bind C1 and potentially inhibit the classical complement pathway [46]. Recently, Pereira et al. used a lipoprotein library to identify novel proteins that are capable of binding to C1 [42] and found, that, in addition to BBK32, the predominantly cp32-encoded Elp proteins recognized C1, specifically C1s [42]. The borrelial genome encodes at least five Elp paralogues that share 44–59% identity and 59–76% similarity. Determining how these proteins augment the classical complement inhibition in borrelial cells—relative to BBK32 function—is not well-characterized, but an area that we are currently evaluating.

The work described in this study was limited to in vitro analyses that tracked the role of BBK32 in survival of B. burgdorferi via the classical pathway. All the assays used employed borrelial antibodies and active classical complement component to assess damage to borrelial cells using flow cytometry (Fig 4), C4c deposition by fluorescence microscopy (Fig 5) and in vitro killing of B. burgdorferi infectious strains and derivatives (Fig 6). The data obtained indicates that functional BBK32 is needed for enhanced survival under these conditions. It is important to note that the effects observed in the infectious parent relative to the bbk32 mutant are not absolute for any of the assays conducted (Figs 5 and 6). This is likely due to compensatory Elp function or other unknown factors that contribute to classical complement resistance.

For most of these approaches the complementation of the bbk32 mutant with shuttle vectors was achieved with intact bbk32 or bbk32-R248A/K327A sequences (Figs 5 and 6). However, we were not successful using flow cytometry for the trans complemented strains perhaps due to enhanced activity associated with the aforementioned Elp proteins. To counteract this limitation, we used a serum sensitive borrelial derivative to produce native BBK32 and separately, a DA mutant variant (i.e., BBK32-R248A/K327A) that was devoid of C1r binding and inhibition, to assess differences in classical complement activation. The results support a role for intact BBK32 to reduce early steps in classical complement activation relative to the DA mutant form (Fig 4). Specifically, the native BBK32 significantly reduced deposition of C4 (in the form of C4c) on the surface of borrelial cells required for forming C3 convertase and promoting downstream proteolytic events that can result in the formation of the membrane attack complex and cell death.

We attempted infectivity studies with the parent, bbk32 mutant, and the two complemented strains, and the known attenuated phenotype of the bbk32 mutant was retained [47,52]. However, complementation was not observed, presumably due to inadequate in vivo selection of the trans complemented bbk32 alleles or dysregulation of the multicopy bbk32 locus relative to native bbk32 expression. Dysregulation of bbk32 under these conditions might result in borrelial cells that are unable to survive in vivo for reasons that are not clear. We are in the process of introducing bbk32 and, separately, the DA allele in single copy, under control of the bbk32 native promoter, in the borrelial genome, to retest experimental infection of B. burgdorferi with these strains. Another confounding variable for BBK32-related in vivo analysis is the presence of other C1-inhibitors, namely Elp proteins that also inhibit the classical pathway [4042]. Thus, isolating mutants in multiple genes simultaneously may be necessary to observe a reduced infectivity phenotype, at least in the context of classical complement inhibition. With the growing number of complement-inhibitory genes identified in borrelial species [30,31,40,41,63,8792], multi-gene knockouts or knockdowns are timely, and should provide clarity about the role of complement inhibition in borrelial survival following infection. The advent of CRISPR-Cas9 systems facilitates approaches to simultaneously knock down or inactivate multiple targets in various combinations [9396]. These and related studies should define which borrelial complement inhibitory protein(s) are essential for borrelial pathogenic readouts.

In summary, we utilized a bbk32 mutant and a strain expressing a bbk32 allele deficient in C1r inhibition in infectious B. burgdorferi to assess the spatial dynamics of BBK32’s interaction with ECM and complement components. We also demonstrated that BBK32 confers protection from borrelial antibody-initiated complement-mediated damage by flow cytometry, fluorescent microscopy, and whole cell sensitivity assays as readouts. Regarding antibody-dependent, complement-mediated killing, BBK32 could serve to abrogate the deleterious effect of borrelial antigen-antibody interactions that increase as the infection proceeds and class switching occurs. Through our previous structure-guided analyses that identified key residues of BBK32 that interface with C1r [44], we used biophysical analyses to determine BBK32’s ability to bind Fn and the C1 complex concurrently in vitro, and cell-based experiments to assess these residues’ role in antibody-dependent complement protection. This work also describes a strategy that could be applied to other multifunctional proteins in the borrelial C1r-inhibitor group, namely TBRF pathogens. Taken together, these studies contribute to our understanding of borrelial surface-expressed proteins capable of interacting with distinct host targets and provide a foundation for deciphering the importance of BBK32-mediated Fn binding relative to classical complement resistance in the context of B. burgdorferi pathogenesis.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Assessment of AlphaFold3 model quality.

The per residue confidence metric predicted local distance difference test (pLDDT) values are shown on the model using AlphaFold3’s standard coloring scheme. pTM: Predicted template modeling score. ipTM: interface predicted template modeling score. The predicted aligned error (PAE) plot is shown on the right with BBK32 corresponding to residues 1–218, Fn to residues 219–397, and C1r residues to 398–637.

(TIF)

ppat.1013361.s001.tif (7.9MB, tif)
S2 Fig. All B. burgdorferi isolates uniformly produce GFP.

B. burgdorferi strains B31-A3 GFP, GP100 (B31-A3 GFP bbk32::StrR), GP100 pCD100 (bbk32::StrR with native bbk32 complement), and GP100 pAP7 (bbk32::StrR with bbk32-R248A/K327A [DA] complement) were fixed as previously described and imaged via confocal microscopy in the GFP and DIC channels.

(TIF)

ppat.1013361.s002.tif (7.1MB, tif)
S3 Fig. Isotype control immunoglobulin does not activate the classical pathway in infectious B. burgdorferi.

B. burgdorferi strains B31-A3 GFP, GP100 (B31-A3 GFP bbk32::StrR), GP100 pCD100 (bbk32::StrR with native bbk32 complement), and GP100 pAP7 (bbk32::StrR with bbk32-R248A/K327A [DA] complement) were incubated with an anti-rabbit isotype control antibody coupled with C5-depleted serum. Cells were then probed with murine anti-C4c, followed by anti-mouse Cy5. Cells were fluorescently imaged via confocal microscopy and the degree of rabbit isotype antibody-dependent C4c deposition was assessed.

(TIF)

ppat.1013361.s003.tif (6.9MB, tif)
S4 Fig. Quantitative assessment of increased deposition of complement components in bbk32 mutant strains.

Five images of B. burgdorferi (one representative image of each group is represented in Fig 5) were scored for the colocalization of GFP and C4c using the integrated coefficient quotient (ICQ) analysis as indicated in the methods. The ICQ for each group is plotted for cells treated with C5-depleted NHS (C5-depl NHS) and either antibody against B. burgdorferi or the rabbit isotype control. * P < 0.05.

(TIF)

ppat.1013361.s004.tif (7.5MB, tif)
S5 Fig. Total blot images cropped for Fig 3A.

(TIF)

ppat.1013361.s005.tif (7.4MB, tif)
S6 Fig. Total blot images cropped for Fig 3B.

(TIF)

ppat.1013361.s006.tif (7.9MB, tif)
S1 Data. Excel spreadsheet with numerical data and statistics for Figs 4, 6A, 6B and S5.

Data for each figure is shown in individual tabs.

(XLSX)

ppat.1013361.s007.xlsx (26.5KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Patti Rosa and Dr. M. A. Motaleb for providing the infectious B. burgdorferi B31-A3 GFP strain. We also are grateful to Haley Przespolewski and Ayesha Nagaria for excellent technical assistance. The authors acknowledge the assistance of Ms. Robbie Moore at the College of Medicine Flow Cytometry and Cell Sorting Facility as well as the assistance of Dr. Malea Murphy at the Integrated Microscopy and Imaging Laboratory within the Texas A&M College of Medicine (RRID:SCR_021637).

Data Availability

The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All data are presented in the manuscript and the Supporting information spreadsheet.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Public Health Service grants AI133367 and AI146930 (to B.L.G and J.T.S) from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Mead PS. Epidemiology of Lyme disease. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2015;29(2):187–210. doi: 10.1016/j.idc.2015.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Radolf JD, Strle K, Lemieux JE, Strle F. Lyme Disease in Humans. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2021;42:333–84. doi: 10.21775/cimb.042.333 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kugeler KJ, Schwartz AM, Delorey MJ, Mead PS, Hinckley AF. Estimating the Frequency of Lyme Disease Diagnoses, United States, 2010-2018. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(2):616–9. doi: 10.3201/eid2702.202731 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hinckley AF, Connally NP, Meek JI, Johnson BJ, Kemperman MM, Feldman KA, et al. Lyme disease testing by large commercial laboratories in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(5):676–81. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciu397 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Radolf JD, Caimano MJ, Stevenson B, Hu LT. Of ticks, mice and men: understanding the dual-host lifestyle of Lyme disease spirochaetes. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10(2):87–99. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2714 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Coburn J, Garcia B, Hu LT, Jewett MW, Kraiczy P, Norris SJ, et al. Lyme Disease Pathogenesis. Lyme Disease and Relapsing Fever Spirochetes: Genomics, Molecular Biology, Host Interactions and Disease Pathogenesis. Caister Academic Press. 2021. doi: 10.21775/9781913652616.13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Pal U, Yang X, Chen M, Bockenstedt LK, Anderson JF, Flavell RA, et al. OspC facilitates Borrelia burgdorferi invasion of Ixodes scapularis salivary glands. J Clin Invest. 2004;113(2):220–30. doi: 10.1172/JCI19894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yang XF, Pal U, Alani SM, Fikrig E, Norgard MV. Essential role for OspA/B in the life cycle of the Lyme disease spirochete. J Exp Med. 2004;199(5):641–8. doi: 10.1084/jem.20031960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Boardman BK, He M, Ouyang Z, Xu H, Pang X, Yang XF. Essential role of the response regulator Rrp2 in the infectious cycle of Borrelia burgdorferi. Infect Immun. 2008;76(9):3844–53. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00467-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chaconas G, Moriarty TJ, Skare J, Hyde JA. Live Imaging. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2021;42:385–408. doi: 10.21775/cimb.042.385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Saputra EP, Trzeciakowski JP, Hyde JA. Borrelia burgdorferi spatiotemporal regulation of transcriptional regulator bosR and decorin binding protein during murine infection. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12534. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69212-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Anderson C, Brissette CA. The Brilliance of Borrelia: Mechanisms of Host Immune Evasion by Lyme Disease-Causing Spirochetes. Pathogens. 2021;10(3):281. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10030281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bockenstedt LK, Wooten RM, Baumgarth N. Immune Response to Borrelia: Lessons from Lyme Disease Spirochetes. Lyme Disease and Relapsing Fever Spirochetes: Genomics, Molecular Biology, Host Interactions and Disease Pathogenesis. Caister Academic Press. 2021. doi: 10.21775/9781913652616.18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Chaconas G, Castellanos M, Verhey TB. Changing of the guard: How the Lyme disease spirochete subverts the host immune response. J Biol Chem. 2020;295(2):301–13. doi: 10.1074/jbc.REV119.008583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chung Y, Zhang N, Wooten RM. Borrelia burgdorferi elicited-IL-10 suppresses the production of inflammatory mediators, phagocytosis, and expression of co-stimulatory receptors by murine macrophages and/or dendritic cells. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e84980. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084980 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Elsner RA, Hastey CJ, Olsen KJ, Baumgarth N. Suppression of Long-Lived Humoral Immunity Following Borrelia burgdorferi Infection. PLoS Pathog. 2015;11(7):e1004976. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.van Dam AP, Oei A, Jaspars R, Fijen C, Wilske B, Spanjaard L, et al. Complement-mediated serum sensitivity among spirochetes that cause Lyme disease. Infect Immun. 1997;65(4):1228–36. doi: 10.1128/iai.65.4.1228-1236.1997 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lin Y-P, Diuk-Wasser MA, Stevenson B, Kraiczy P. Complement Evasion Contributes to Lyme Borreliae-Host Associations. Trends Parasitol. 2020;36(7):634–45. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2020.04.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ricklin D, Hajishengallis G, Yang K, Lambris JD. Complement: a key system for immune surveillance and homeostasis. Nat Immunol. 2010;11(9):785–97. doi: 10.1038/ni.1923 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Merle NS, Noe R, Halbwachs-Mecarelli L, Fremeaux-Bacchi V, Roumenina LT. Complement System Part II: Role in Immunity. Front Immunol. 2015;6:257. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Merle NS, Church SE, Fremeaux-Bacchi V, Roumenina LT. Complement System Part I - Molecular Mechanisms of Activation and Regulation. Front Immunol. 2015;6:262. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00262 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Schmidt CQ, Lambris JD, Ricklin D. Protection of host cells by complement regulators. Immunol Rev. 2016;274(1):152–71. doi: 10.1111/imr.12475 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gaboriaud C, Thielens NM, Gregory LA, Rossi V, Fontecilla-Camps JC, Arlaud GJ. Structure and activation of the C1 complex of complement: unraveling the puzzle. Trends Immunol. 2004;25(7):368–73. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2004.04.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Belperron AA, Bockenstedt LK. Natural antibody affects survival of the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi within feeding ticks. Infect Immun. 2001;69(10):6456–62. doi: 10.1128/IAI.69.10.6456-6462.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Barthold SW, Bockenstedt LK. Passive immunizing activity of sera from mice infected with Borrelia burgdorferi. Infect Immun. 1993;61(11):4696–702. doi: 10.1128/iai.61.11.4696-4702.1993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Skare JT, Garcia BL. Complement Evasion by Lyme Disease Spirochetes. Trends Microbiol. 2020;28(11):889–99. doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2020.05.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.de Taeye SW, Kreuk L, van Dam AP, Hovius JW, Schuijt TJ. Complement evasion by Borrelia burgdorferi: it takes three to tango. Trends Parasitol. 2013;29(3):119–28. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2012.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kraiczy P. Hide and Seek: How Lyme Disease Spirochetes Overcome Complement Attack. Front Immunol. 2016;7:385. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Bykowski T, Woodman ME, Cooley AE, Brissette CA, Wallich R, Brade V, et al. Borrelia burgdorferi complement regulator-acquiring surface proteins (BbCRASPs): Expression patterns during the mammal-tick infection cycle. Int J Med Microbiol. 2008;298 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):249–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2007.10.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kraiczy P, Stevenson B. Complement regulator-acquiring surface proteins of Borrelia burgdorferi: Structure, function and regulation of gene expression. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2013;4(1–2):26–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2012.10.039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lin Y-P, Frye AM, Nowak TA, Kraiczy P. New Insights Into CRASP-Mediated Complement Evasion in the Lyme Disease Enzootic Cycle. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:1. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kenedy MR, Vuppala SR, Siegel C, Kraiczy P, Akins DR. CspA-mediated binding of human factor H inhibits complement deposition and confers serum resistance in Borrelia burgdorferi. Infect Immun. 2009;77(7):2773–82. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00318-09 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kraiczy P, Hanssen-Hübner C, Kitiratschky V, Brenner C, Besier S, Brade V, et al. Mutational analyses of the BbCRASP-1 protein of Borrelia burgdorferi identify residues relevant for the architecture and binding of host complement regulators FHL-1 and factor H. Int J Med Microbiol. 2009;299(4):255–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2008.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hartmann K, Corvey C, Skerka C, Kirschfink M, Karas M, Brade V, et al. Functional characterization of BbCRASP-2, a distinct outer membrane protein of Borrelia burgdorferi that binds host complement regulators factor H and FHL-1. Mol Microbiol. 2006;61(5):1220–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2006.05318.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Metts MS, McDowell JV, Theisen M, Hansen PR, Marconi RT. Analysis of the OspE determinants involved in binding of factor H and OspE-targeting antibodies elicited during Borrelia burgdorferi infection in mice. Infect Immun. 2003;71(6):3587–96. doi: 10.1128/IAI.71.6.3587-3596.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Iyer R, Caimano MJ, Luthra A, Axline D Jr, Corona A, Iacobas DA, et al. Stage-specific global alterations in the transcriptomes of Lyme disease spirochetes during tick feeding and following mammalian host adaptation. Mol Microbiol. 2015;95(3):509–38. doi: 10.1111/mmi.12882 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Grassmann AA, Tokarz R, Golino C, McLain MA, Groshong AM, Radolf JD, et al. BosR and PlzA reciprocally regulate RpoS function to sustain Borrelia burgdorferi in ticks and mammals. J Clin Invest. 2023;133(5):e166710. doi: 10.1172/JCI166710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pietikäinen J, Meri T, Blom AM, Meri S. Binding of the complement inhibitor C4b-binding protein to Lyme disease Borreliae. Mol Immunol. 2010;47(6):1299–305. doi: 10.1016/j.molimm.2009.11.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Caine JA, Lin Y-P, Kessler JR, Sato H, Leong JM, Coburn J. Borrelia burgdorferi outer surface protein C (OspC) binds complement component C4b and confers bloodstream survival. Cell Microbiol. 2017;19(12):10.1111/cmi.12786. doi: 10.1111/cmi.12786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Thomas S, Schulz AM, Leong JM, Zeczycki TN, Garcia BL. The molecular determinants of classical pathway complement inhibition by OspEF-related proteins of Borrelia burgdorferi. J Biol Chem. 2024;300(5):107236. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2024.107236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Garrigues RJ, Thomas S, Leong JM, Garcia BL. Outer surface lipoproteins from the Lyme disease spirochete exploit the molecular switch mechanism of the complement protease C1s. J Biol Chem. 2022;298(11):102557. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2022.102557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Pereira MJ, Wager B, Garrigues RJ, Gerlach E, Quinn JD, Dowdell AS, et al. Lipoproteome screening of the Lyme disease agent identifies inhibitors of antibody-mediated complement killing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119(13):e2117770119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2117770119 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Roy S, Booth CE Jr, Powell-Pierce AD, Schulz AM, Skare JT, Garcia BL. Conformational dynamics of complement protease C1r inhibitor proteins from Lyme disease- and relapsing fever-causing spirochetes. J Biol Chem. 2023;299(8):104972. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2023.104972 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Garrigues RJ, Powell-Pierce AD, Hammel M, Skare JT, Garcia BL. A Structural Basis for Inhibition of the Complement Initiator Protease C1r by Lyme Disease Spirochetes. J Immunol. 2021;207(11):2856–67. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.2100815 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Xie J, Zhi H, Garrigues RJ, Keightley A, Garcia BL, Skare JT. Structural determination of the complement inhibitory domain of Borrelia burgdorferi BBK32 provides insight into classical pathway complement evasion by Lyme disease spirochetes. PLoS Pathog. 2019;15(3):e1007659. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Garcia BL, Zhi H, Wager B, Höök M, Skare JT. Borrelia burgdorferi BBK32 Inhibits the Classical Pathway by Blocking Activation of the C1 Complement Complex. PLoS Pathog. 2016;12(1):e1005404. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Seshu J, Esteve-Gassent MD, Labandeira-Rey M, Kim JH, Trzeciakowski JP, Höök M, et al. Inactivation of the fibronectin-binding adhesin gene bbk32 significantly attenuates the infectivity potential of Borrelia burgdorferi. Mol Microbiol. 2006;59(5):1591–601. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.05042.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Probert WS, Johnson BJ. Identification of a 47 kDa fibronectin-binding protein expressed by Borrelia burgdorferi isolate B31. Mol Microbiol. 1998;30(5):1003–15. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.1998.01127.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Probert WS, Kim JH, Höök M, Johnson BJ. Mapping the ligand-binding region of Borrelia burgdorferi fibronectin-binding protein BBK32. Infect Immun. 2001;69(6):4129–33. doi: 10.1128/IAI.69.6.4129-4133.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kim JH, Singvall J, Schwarz-Linek U, Johnson BJB, Potts JR, Höök M. BBK32, a fibronectin binding MSCRAMM from Borrelia burgdorferi, contains a disordered region that undergoes a conformational change on ligand binding. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(40):41706–14. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M401691200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lin Y-P, Chen Q, Ritchie JA, Dufour NP, Fischer JR, Coburn J, et al. Glycosaminoglycan binding by Borrelia burgdorferi adhesin BBK32 specifically and uniquely promotes joint colonization. Cell Microbiol. 2015;17(6):860–75. doi: 10.1111/cmi.12407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hyde JA, Weening EH, Chang M, Trzeciakowski JP, Höök M, Cirillo JD, et al. Bioluminescent imaging of Borrelia burgdorferi in vivo demonstrates that the fibronectin-binding protein BBK32 is required for optimal infectivity. Mol Microbiol. 2011;82(1):99–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2958.2011.07801.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ebady R, Niddam AF, Boczula AE, Kim YR, Gupta N, Tang TT, et al. Biomechanics of Borrelia burgdorferi Vascular Interactions. Cell Rep. 2016;16(10):2593–604. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.08.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Moriarty TJ, Shi M, Lin Y-P, Ebady R, Zhou H, Odisho T, et al. Vascular binding of a pathogen under shear force through mechanistically distinct sequential interactions with host macromolecules. Mol Microbiol. 2012;86(5):1116–31. doi: 10.1111/mmi.12045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Fischer JR, LeBlanc KT, Leong JM. Fibronectin binding protein BBK32 of the Lyme disease spirochete promotes bacterial attachment to glycosaminoglycans. Infect Immun. 2006;74(1):435–41. doi: 10.1128/IAI.74.1.435-441.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Abramson J, Adler J, Dunger J, Evans R, Green T, Pritzel A, et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature. 2024;630(8016):493–500. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Harris G, Ma W, Maurer LM, Potts JR, Mosher DF. Borrelia burgdorferi protein BBK32 binds to soluble fibronectin via the N-terminal 70-kDa region, causing fibronectin to undergo conformational extension. J Biol Chem. 2014;289(32):22490–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M114.578419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Labandeira-Rey M, Skare JT. Decreased infectivity in Borrelia burgdorferi strain B31 is associated with loss of linear plasmid 25 or 28-1. Infect Immun. 2001;69(1):446–55. doi: 10.1128/IAI.69.1.446-455.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sultan SZ, Sekar P, Zhao X, Manne A, Liu J, Wooten RM, et al. Motor rotation is essential for the formation of the periplasmic flagellar ribbon, cellular morphology, and Borrelia burgdorferi persistence within Ixodes scapularis tick and murine hosts. Infect Immun. 2015;83(5):1765–77. doi: 10.1128/IAI.03097-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Hyde JA, Weening EH, Skare JT. Genetic transformation of Borrelia burgdorferi. Curr Protoc Microbiol. 2011;Chapter 12:Unit 12C.4. doi: 10.1002/9780471729259.mc12c04s20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Barbour AG. Isolation and cultivation of Lyme disease spirochetes. Yale J Biol Med. 1984;57(4):521–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Purser JE, Lawrenz MB, Caimano MJ, Howell JK, Radolf JD, Norris SJ. A plasmid-encoded nicotinamidase (PncA) is essential for infectivity of Borrelia burgdorferi in a mammalian host. Mol Microbiol. 2003;48(3):753–64. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03452.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Booth CE Jr, Powell-Pierce AD, Skare JT, Garcia BL. Borrelia miyamotoi FbpA and FbpB Are Immunomodulatory Outer Surface Lipoproteins With Distinct Structures and Functions. Front Immunol. 2022;13:886733. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.886733 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Samuels DS. Electrotransformation of the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi. Methods Mol Biol. 1995;47:253–9. doi: 10.1385/0-89603-310-4:253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Samuels DS, Drecktrah D, Hall LS. Genetic Transformation and Complementation. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1690:183–200. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7383-5_15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Bolte S, Cordelières FP. A guided tour into subcellular colocalization analysis in light microscopy. J Microsc. 2006;224(Pt 3):213–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2006.01706.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Raibaud S, Schwarz-Linek U, Kim JH, Jenkins HT, Baines ER, Gurusiddappa S, et al. Borrelia burgdorferi binds fibronectin through a tandem beta-zipper, a common mechanism of fibronectin binding in staphylococci, streptococci, and spirochetes. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(19):18803–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M501731200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Prabhakaran S, Liang X, Skare JT, Potts JR, Höök M. A novel fibronectin binding motif in MSCRAMMs targets F3 modules. PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5412. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Liang X, Garcia BL, Visai L, Prabhakaran S, Meenan NAG, Potts JR, et al. Allosteric Regulation of Fibronectin/α5β1 Interaction by Fibronectin-Binding MSCRAMMs. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0159118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Ma W, Ma H, Mosher DF. On-Off Kinetics of Engagement of FNI Modules of Soluble Fibronectin by β-Strand Addition. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0124941. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Labandeira-Rey M, Seshu J, Skare JT. The absence of linear plasmid 25 or 28-1 of Borrelia burgdorferi dramatically alters the kinetics of experimental infection via distinct mechanisms. Infect Immun. 2003;71(8):4608–13. doi: 10.1128/IAI.71.8.4608-4613.2003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Zhi H, Xie J, Skare JT. The Classical Complement Pathway Is Required to Control Borrelia burgdorferi Levels During Experimental Infection. Front Immunol. 2018;9:959. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Lewis ERG, Marcsisin RA, Campeau Miller SA, Hue F, Phillips A, Aucoin DP, et al. Fibronectin-binding protein of Borrelia hermsii expressed in the blood of mice with relapsing fever. Infect Immun. 2014;82(6):2520–31. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01582-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Wang C, Li Y-Y, Li X, Wei L-L, Yang X-Y, Xu D-D, et al. Serum complement C4b, fibronectin, and prolidase are associated with the pathological changes of pulmonary tuberculosis. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:52. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-52 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Hymes JP, Klaenhammer TR. Stuck in the Middle: Fibronectin-Binding Proteins in Gram-Positive Bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1504. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01504 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Foster TJ. The remarkably multifunctional fibronectin binding proteins of Staphylococcus aureus. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2016;35(12):1923–31. doi: 10.1007/s10096-016-2763-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Leduc I, Olsen B, Elkins C. Localization of the domains of the Haemophilus ducreyi trimeric autotransporter DsrA involved in serum resistance and binding to the extracellular matrix proteins fibronectin and vitronectin. Infect Immun. 2009;77(2):657–66. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00819-08 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Kuipers A, Stapels DAC, Weerwind LT, Ko Y-P, Ruyken M, Lee JC, et al. The Staphylococcus aureus polysaccharide capsule and Efb-dependent fibrinogen shield act in concert to protect against phagocytosis. Microbiology (Reading). 2016;162(7):1185–94. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.000293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Bing DH, Almeda S, Isliker H, Lahav J, Hynes RO. Fibronectin binds to the C1q component of complement. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1982;79(13):4198–201. doi: 10.1073/pnas.79.13.4198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Czop JK, Kadish JL, Zepf DM, Austen KF. Characterization of the opsonic and monocyte adherence functions of the specific fibronectin fragment that enhances phagocytosis of particulate activators. J Immunol. 1985;134(3):1844–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Willmann EA, Pandurovic V, Jokinen A, Beckley D, Bohlson SS. Extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 is required for complement component C1q and fibronectin dependent enhancement of Fcγ- receptor mediated phagocytosis in mouse and human cells. BMC Immunol. 2020;21(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s12865-020-00393-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Caine JA, Coburn J. Multifunctional and Redundant Roles of Borrelia burgdorferi Outer Surface Proteins in Tissue Adhesion, Colonization, and Complement Evasion. Front Immunol. 2016;7:442. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Kraiczy P, Skerka C, Brade V, Zipfel PF. Further characterization of complement regulator-acquiring surface proteins of Borrelia burgdorferi. Infect Immun. 2001;69(12):7800–9. doi: 10.1128/IAI.69.12.7800-7809.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Kraiczy P, Hellwage J, Skerka C, Becker H, Kirschfink M, Simon MM, et al. Complement resistance of Borrelia burgdorferi correlates with the expression of BbCRASP-1, a novel linear plasmid-encoded surface protein that interacts with human factor H and FHL-1 and is unrelated to Erp proteins. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(4):2421–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M308343200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Wallich R, Pattathu J, Kitiratschky V, Brenner C, Zipfel PF, Brade V, et al. Identification and functional characterization of complement regulator-acquiring surface protein 1 of the Lyme disease spirochetes Borrelia afzelii and Borrelia garinii. Infect Immun. 2005;73(4):2351–9. doi: 10.1128/IAI.73.4.2351-2359.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Hart T, Nguyen NTT, Nowak NA, Zhang F, Linhardt RJ, Diuk-Wasser M, et al. Polymorphic factor H-binding activity of CspA protects Lyme borreliae from the host complement in feeding ticks to facilitate tick-to-host transmission. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(5):e1007106. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1007106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Walter L, Sürth V, Röttgerding F, Zipfel PF, Fritz-Wolf K, Kraiczy P. Elucidating the Immune Evasion Mechanisms of Borrelia mayonii, the Causative Agent of Lyme Disease. Front Immunol. 2019;10:2722. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Stone BL, Brissette CA. Host Immune Evasion by Lyme and Relapsing Fever Borreliae: Findings to Lead Future Studies for Borrelia miyamotoi. Front Immunol. 2017;8:12. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Röttgerding F, Wagemakers A, Koetsveld J, Fingerle V, Kirschfink M, Hovius JW, et al. Immune evasion of Borrelia miyamotoi: CbiA, a novel outer surface protein exhibiting complement binding and inactivating properties. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):303. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00412-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Grosskinsky S, Schott M, Brenner C, Cutler SJ, Simon MM, Wallich R. Human complement regulators C4b-binding protein and C1 esterase inhibitor interact with a novel outer surface protein of Borrelia recurrentis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2010;4(6):e698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0000698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Schott M, Grosskinsky S, Brenner C, Kraiczy P, Wallich R. Molecular characterization of the interaction of Borrelia parkeri and Borrelia turicatae with human complement regulators. Infect Immun. 2010;78(5):2199–208. doi: 10.1128/IAI.00089-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Fine LM, Miller DP, Mallory KL, Tegels BK, Earnhart CG, Marconi RT. The Borrelia hermsii factor H binding protein FhbA is not required for infectivity in mice or for resistance to human complement in vitro. Infect Immun. 2014;82(8):3324–32. doi: 10.1128/IAI.01892-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Takacs CN, Scott M, Chang Y, Kloos ZA, Irnov I, Rosa PA, et al. A CRISPR interference platform for selective downregulation of gene expression in Borrelia burgdorferi. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2021;87(4):e02519-20. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02519-20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Takacs CN, Nakajima Y, Haber JE, Jacobs-Wagner C. Cas9-mediated endogenous plasmid loss in Borrelia burgdorferi. PLoS One. 2022;17(11):e0278151. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Murphy BT, Wiepen JJ, He H, Pramanik AS, Peters JM, Stevenson B, et al. Inducible CRISPRi-Based Operon Silencing and Selective in Trans Gene Complementation in Borrelia burgdorferi. J Bacteriol. 2023;205(2):e0046822. doi: 10.1128/jb.00468-22 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.He H, Pramanik AS, Swanson SK, Johnson DK, Florens L, Zückert WR. A Borrelia burgdorferi LptD homolog is required for flipping of surface lipoproteins through the spirochetal outer membrane. Mol Microbiol. 2023;119(6):752–67. doi: 10.1111/mmi.15072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

D Scott Samuels

PPATHOGENS-D-25-01145

BBK32 attenuates antibody-dependent complement-mediated killing of infectious Borreliella burgdorferi isolates

PLOS Pathogens

Jon,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Pathogens. Your manuscript was reviewed by members of the Editorial Board and five external referees. In a testament to this work, it is rare to have so many reviewers agree to the invitation so quickly. Although there is a difference of opinion among the reviewers, most are supportive of your study. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. No additional experimentation is required but based on the reviewers' comments some points need to be presented or explained more thoroughly.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Aug 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plospathogens@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/ppathogens/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jenifer Coburn, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

D. Scott Samuels

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Journal Requirements:

1) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

2) We do not publish any copyright or trademark symbols that usually accompany proprietary names, eg ©,  ®, or TM  (e.g. next to drug or reagent names). Therefore please remove all instances of trademark/copyright symbols throughout the text, including:

- TM on page: 12.

3) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/s/figures

4) We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a complete list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list.

5) We notice that your supplementary Figures are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

6) We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All data are presented in the manuscript and and any supporting files. Any additional inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.". Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data: 

1) The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

2) The values used to build graphs;

3) The points extracted from images for analysis..

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

7) Please provide a detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

1) Please clarify all sources of financial support for your study. List the grants, grant numbers, and organizations that funded your study, including funding received from your institution. Please note that suppliers of material support, including research materials, should be recognized in the Acknowledgements section rather than in the Financial Disclosure

2) State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant. For example: "This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (####### to AM; ###### to CJ) and the National Science Foundation (###### to AM)."

3) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

4) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders..

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: u201cThe authors received no specific funding for this work.u201d

8) Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well.

9) Please send a completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:"

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Part I - Summary

Please use this section to discuss strengths/weaknesses of study, novelty/significance, general execution and scholarship.

Reviewer #1: The team of the corresponding authors (Garcia and Skare) have published a series of papers demonstrating the anti-complement (classical pathway) functions of BBK32. In this work, their team (Powell-Pierce et al.) identified the C1r-binding sites, independent on the previously reported Fn-binding sites (activities). Leverage on this information, they further attributed this site (and BBK32-mediated C1r-binding activity) to spirochete’s ability to evade antibody-mediated killing. The work was elegantly done and the paper was well written. I only have few suggestions, specifically on discussing this work and previous work to provide the physiological implications of Lyme borreliae pathogenesis:

Reviewer #2: Skare et al. submitted this manuscript, BBK32 attenuates antibody-dependent complement-mediated killing of infectious Borrelia burgdorferi isolates. This study presents a wealth of new information regarding the interaction of BBK32, FN, and C1r. The authors discovered that BBK32 could bind to ECM, fibronectin, and C1r simultaneously to evade antibody-dependent complement-mediated killing. The authors further applied the AlphaFold3 analysis to predict a ternary complex of BBK32. Other techniques, such as flow cytometry, Fluorescent Microscopy, localization Analysis, and Antibody-Dependent Complement-Mediated Killing Assays, are used to delineate further the evasion mechanisms mediated by the virulence factor BBK32.

Reviewer #3: This is a well-written manuscript addressing the question as to whether BBK32, a fibronectin binding protein of Borrelia burgdorferi, can simultaneously bind fibronectin and also complement C1 without losing the capacity to interfere with complement function. This question is relevant to understanding how a single molecule can serve multiple functions to allow spirochetes to disseminate and evade host immunity in the early pathogenesis of Lyme disease. The study builds on previous structural data to predict fibronectin and complement binding sites on BBK32, and makes use of parent, mutant and reconstituted spirochete mutants to show that BBK32 can protect spirochetes from complement-mediated killing in vitro by reducing C4 deposition on spirochetes. The studies performed are sound, impact more than one Borrelia strain, and the results are clear from the data presented. While it would be helpful to show that this occurs in vivo, the multitude of pathways that Borrelia spirochetes use to evade complement-mediated killing will likely lead to inconclusive results unless these other pathways are also interrupted, which is beyond the scope of this study.

Reviewer #4: This study by Powell-Pierce et al examined whether the two distinct functions previously ascribed to the Borrelia burgdorferi protein BBK32, namely binding to fibronectin and complement C1r could happen without interference from each other. Indeed, previously published identification of the relevant binding residues on the molecule (As131-162 and AS 206-354, respectively, and crystal structures of BBK32 = C1r and BBK32-Fn all had indicated that. This was then here confirmed by using alpha-fold predictions and functionally by plasmon resonance and Western blotting experiments with various mutants. In addition, the authors showed using different mutants of BBK32 that complement deposition was reduced when analyzed by flow cytometry (no primary data shown), image analysis (quantification lacking) and functionally by in vitro killing. Those last assays were done without the testing of Fn binding interference.

Overall, the study confirmed their previous findings that BBK32 supports Bb survival in the presence of complement and previous crystal structure analysis and mutant analysis demonstrating that FN and Complement bind to different parts of the protein.

Reviewer #5: This paper continues the past work, mainly by these investigators, into the functionality of the B. burgdorferi protein BBK32 as protection from complement-mediated killing following infection. In addition to the ability to bind C1r, BBK32 also has a dual property in that it binds ECM components including fibronectin. The authors investigated two hypotheses, that BBK32 can simultaneously bind both C1r and fibronectin, and whether BBK32 provided protection against complement activation in the presence of anti-B. burgdorferi antibodies. The data presented predicts by in vitro AlphaFold3 analysis and confirmed by surface plasmon resonance that dual binding can occur. The authors proceed with experiments designed to demonstrate selective binding of C1r and fibronectin to various wild type and BBK32 mutated proteins and two B. burgdorferi parent strains by Far Westerns followed by assessments of complement activations by flow cytometry and immunofluorescent microscopy. By the results of these experiments, the authors conclude that BBK32 attenuates antibody-mediated complement killing of B. burgdorferi which had not previously been identified.

**********

Part II – Major Issues: Key Experiments Required for Acceptance

Please use this section to detail the key new experiments or modifications of existing experiments that should be absolutely required to validate study conclusions.

Generally, there should be no more than 3 such required experiments or major modifications for a "Major Revision" recommendation. If more than 3 experiments are necessary to validate the study conclusions, then you are encouraged to recommend "Reject".

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have performed SPR using the full-length FN and C1R. Since the authors have reported the BBK32 binding sites of Fn (amino acid residues 131-162) and C1r (206-354), it may be helpful to include the binding domain in the performance of SPR.

The authors may include isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) further to prove the interaction of Bkk32 with FN and C1r, as it is a valuable technique for studying protein-protein interactions using both surface plasmon resonance (SPR) and ITC.

Reviewer #3: The authors have provided a description of additional studies that are either in progress or would be necessary to have a more complete story of how BBk32's dual role as an adhesin and as an inhibitor of complement contributes to Borrelia burgdorferi pathogenesis. However, I believe this manuscript is a complete enough story as is and no additional experiments are necessary for this to be published.

Reviewer #4: 1) The data in Figure 4 cannot be verified without showing the flow cytometry results.

2) The imaging results for C4c deposition on Bb requires proper image quantification to normalize for the presence of Bb. It is common to also provide a darkfield image to confirm the presence of gfp expression on all spirochetes. Indication should be provided about the number of spirochetes analyzed and the frequency of those showing deposition. If deposition is reduced but not eliminated, then an average MFI might be used instead.

3) It is unclear why figures 4-6 were done exclusively testing of complement inhibition, which had been previously amply demonstrated, when the novel information to be provided in this manuscript was to explore the interaction of Fn-C binding simultaneously.

Reviewer #5: No major issues

**********

Part III – Minor Issues: Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications

Please use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity.

Reviewer #1: 1. Before the authors’ team identified BBK32 as a C1r-binding protein (Garcia et al. PLoS Pathog 2016), BBK32 was known to have two functions (glycosaminoglycan (GAG)-binding activity and fibronectin (Fn)-binding activity). Lin et al. Cell Microbiol 2015 from Dr. John Leong’s team and Moriarty et al. Mol. Microbiol. 2012 from Dr. George Chaconas’s lab located where those activities are on the BBK32 (residues 45-68 and 158 to 182 (and 182 to 209) of BBK32). Lin et al. and Moriarty et al. have used the spirochetes producing BBK32 with internally deletions on the amino acids 45-68 and 158-182 to attribute Fn- and GAG-functions of BBK32 to vascular interactions (through short term i.v. injection of mice) and early stages joint colonization (through low dose, intradermal inoculation of mice). Therefore, the information described in the line 115-116 and 433-434 may not be accurate, especially to reflect the findings of those papers.

2. The authors have identified BBK32 to be able to simultaneously bind to Fn and C1r, suggesting that the functions of Fn-binding and C1r-binding of BBK32 can be performing simultaneously during infection. GAG binds to amino acids 45-68 of BBK32, far from Fn and C1r-binding sites. Therefore, although the authors did not characterize whether BBK32 can bind to Fn, C1r, simultaneously with GAG, it is very likely that BBK32 can bind to these three ligands simultaneously. As Lin et al. 2015 and Moriarty et al. 2012 have defined the functions of GAG and Fn for BBK32 during infection, the physiological implications in the case that BBK32 evolved to bind to three ligands at the same time would be worth to discuss. Lin et al. and Moriarity et al. each proposed a model to explain the functions of GAG and Fn at early stages of infection. C1r seems to be the last piece of puzzle of the picture to elucidate the role of BBK32 during early infection.

3. The papers from one of the corresponding authors in this manuscript, Dr. Skare, (Seshu et al. Mol. Microbiol. 2006 and Hyde et al. Mol. Microbiol. 2011) showed that a bbk32 mutant (the strain JS315 in ML23 missing lp25) when introduced into the mice under low dose close to ID50 (10^3 per mouse) displayed partial colonization defects at early stages of infection. This work later was later confirmed by this manuscript and Lin et al. Cell Microbiol. 2015, indicating the strength of controlling the dose under intradermal injection to delineate the roles of functionally redundant Lyme borreliae proteins. However, Li et al. from Dr. Erol Fikrig’s laboratory showed that a bbk32 mutant in the background of a bacterial strain with lp25 does not have any defects in mouse-to-tick acquisition, tick-to-mouse transmission, and tissue colonization (Li et al. Infect Immun 2006). It would be worth to discuss these results of BBK32 from the perspectives of Lyme borreliae pathogenesis. Such discussions would be helpful because it has been very common for the strain deficient of different Lyme borreliae gene (e.g., DbpA, CspZ, CspA) showing different phenotypes under tick vs. needle infection models.

4. The authors mentioned that some partial phenotypes in this study could be due to the compensatory functions of Elp (line 476-477). Does the background strain that is in this study encode Elp?

Reviewer #2: Fig. 3: It would be helpful to have a band density plot using ImageJ. The present legend is not easy to understand. It may be useful to provide a brief explanation in the legend.

Fig. 5: It may be helpful to include an arrow in the overlay and provide a brief explanation in the legend.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript is clearly written. The only modification suggested is in the Discussion section, lines 394-397, regarding the stated hypothesis that survival of B. burgdorferi after exposure to Borrelia antibodies and complement would be diminished in the presence of functional BBK32. If this is indeed the hypothesis, then there should be another sentence indicating that their results are opposite to this due to the ability of BBK32 to bind both fibronectin and inhibit complement activation simultaneously.

Reviewer #4: 1) Studies by John Weis (Jacobson et al. 2007) and others showed that complement receptor-mediated killing is not required for control of Borrelia by mice. Thus, the extent to which complement can opsonize to support Borrelia-killing is unclear. A point that should be considered and acknowledged.

Reviewer #5: 1. As a personal opinion, I prefer the Supplemental Figures 3 and 4 over Figure 3. Showing the entire blots rather than selective cutaways has always seemed more believable (at least to me). Plus, the blots are beautifully clean from non-specific binding. Just a note for consideration.

Another small note; the authors could have considered adding a recombinant BBK32 lane to the blots to ensure that the fibronectin and C1r were indeed binding to native BBK32 in the lysate lanes instead of the possibility of binding to a different protein that co-migrates with BBK32 in the gel.

2. Regarding the fluorescent microscopy images in Fig. 5, hopefully it would be possible to lighten the brightness on the images especially for the anti-C4c pictures. Even on the computer screen, it was difficult to compare those images with the overlay images. So the statement in the text Results lines 357-362 that more C4c was seen in the mutant strains than the parents doesn’t look convincing and is debatable. Perhaps lightening the images and adding arrows to show borrelia without C4 staining in the parents could be helpful. The flow data from Fig. 4 is more convincing.

3. Strictly an editorial comment. The authors provide a comprehensive background narrative in the Introduction and the Discussion. However, although nicely structured and informative, the entire text (mainly in the Results) could be improved for reading by eliminating needless words and phrases. There are several instances of: “to (or towards) this end…”, “in order …”, “…we then…” , “to begin…”, “we sought to…”; “ we next…” that when removed streamlines the reading.

Line 69; “these hosts” may be better than “organisms”

Line 102; “pathways” (plural)

Lines 107-109; sentence repeats “classical pathway”. Could be rewritten as “ BBK32, which is upregulated during vertebrate infection, can potently block activation of the classical pathway of complement by binding to C1r ”.

Lines 277-279; this sentence redundant to line 272 that starts this paragraph. Can be omitted.

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Decision Letter 1

D Scott Samuels

Jon,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript with detailed point-by-point responses to the Reviewers' comments. We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'BBK32 attenuates antibody-dependent complement-mediated killing of infectious Borreliella burgdorferi isolates' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Jenifer Coburn, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Pathogens

D. Scott Samuels

Section Editor

PLOS Pathogens

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Acceptance letter

D Scott Samuels

Dear Dr. Skare,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "BBK32 attenuates antibody-dependent complement-mediated killing of infectious Borreliella burgdorferi isolates," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Pathogens.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the pre-publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Pearls, Reviews, Opinions, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript, if you opted to have an early version of your article, will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Pathogens.

Best regards,

Sumita Bhaduri-McIntosh

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0003-2946-9497

Michael Malim

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Pathogens

orcid.org/0000-0002-7699-2064

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Assessment of AlphaFold3 model quality.

    The per residue confidence metric predicted local distance difference test (pLDDT) values are shown on the model using AlphaFold3’s standard coloring scheme. pTM: Predicted template modeling score. ipTM: interface predicted template modeling score. The predicted aligned error (PAE) plot is shown on the right with BBK32 corresponding to residues 1–218, Fn to residues 219–397, and C1r residues to 398–637.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013361.s001.tif (7.9MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. All B. burgdorferi isolates uniformly produce GFP.

    B. burgdorferi strains B31-A3 GFP, GP100 (B31-A3 GFP bbk32::StrR), GP100 pCD100 (bbk32::StrR with native bbk32 complement), and GP100 pAP7 (bbk32::StrR with bbk32-R248A/K327A [DA] complement) were fixed as previously described and imaged via confocal microscopy in the GFP and DIC channels.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013361.s002.tif (7.1MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Isotype control immunoglobulin does not activate the classical pathway in infectious B. burgdorferi.

    B. burgdorferi strains B31-A3 GFP, GP100 (B31-A3 GFP bbk32::StrR), GP100 pCD100 (bbk32::StrR with native bbk32 complement), and GP100 pAP7 (bbk32::StrR with bbk32-R248A/K327A [DA] complement) were incubated with an anti-rabbit isotype control antibody coupled with C5-depleted serum. Cells were then probed with murine anti-C4c, followed by anti-mouse Cy5. Cells were fluorescently imaged via confocal microscopy and the degree of rabbit isotype antibody-dependent C4c deposition was assessed.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013361.s003.tif (6.9MB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Quantitative assessment of increased deposition of complement components in bbk32 mutant strains.

    Five images of B. burgdorferi (one representative image of each group is represented in Fig 5) were scored for the colocalization of GFP and C4c using the integrated coefficient quotient (ICQ) analysis as indicated in the methods. The ICQ for each group is plotted for cells treated with C5-depleted NHS (C5-depl NHS) and either antibody against B. burgdorferi or the rabbit isotype control. * P < 0.05.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013361.s004.tif (7.5MB, tif)
    S5 Fig. Total blot images cropped for Fig 3A.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013361.s005.tif (7.4MB, tif)
    S6 Fig. Total blot images cropped for Fig 3B.

    (TIF)

    ppat.1013361.s006.tif (7.9MB, tif)
    S1 Data. Excel spreadsheet with numerical data and statistics for Figs 4, 6A, 6B and S5.

    Data for each figure is shown in individual tabs.

    (XLSX)

    ppat.1013361.s007.xlsx (26.5KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLoS_Pathogens_Powell_ADCK_Crit_Resp_250708.pdf

    ppat.1013361.s009.pdf (107.5KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All data are presented in the manuscript and the Supporting information spreadsheet.


    Articles from PLOS Pathogens are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES